$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('backstop', '
')Starvid -
I'm amused by the incoherence of your resonse -
The great majority of Americans support action against Iran being allowed nuclear capacity, and, as a Brit, my question was addressed to Americans on the board.
PeakOil is You
THE Jared Diamond Thread (merged)
Re: Jared Diamond on nuclear power
by Starvid » Sun 19 Mar 2006, 11:13:46
Ok, sorry. I thought you were an American. Some people on this board have thought I was an American in disguise and I know that's not funny.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('backstop', '
')I don't see the imperialism you claim to dislike as a particularly American invention, and when you write :
"Okay, we could tell people that no one but the Great powers can develop enrichment and reprocessing facilities"
it would appear that your opposition to it is scarcely even skin deep.
You don't understand me then. I consider it an act of imperialism (not neccesarily of the American variety) when another country tries to decide another countries energy policy, which is partly what the US is trying with Iran (or Russia is doing with Ukraine).
Stopping reprocessing and enrichment in nasty countries is completely different. This is something the world community does together to limit nuclear weapons proliferation.
Iran has all the right in the world to build power reactors, but no one would like to see Iranian nuclear bombs, not even the Russians, Chinese or any of the usual bogeymen.
Maybe one could call this an act of imperialism. I would rather see it as an act of majority rule for the common security and stability.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('backstop', 'I')n the world of a plutonium economy, with, as you propose, just a few nations being allowed enrichment & reprocessing capacity
and all others being reduced to client dependency,
I see the concreting in of a nuclear imperialism, not its eradication from the planet.
regards,
Backstop
I don't agree.
On one hand one could see nuclear power used only in countries which currently have nuclear power or nuclear weapons. Even though this is only maybe one country in five, about 4/5 of the global population live in these countries. The others could burn coal and gas if they'd like.
On the other hand, reprocessing and enrichment needs to be done on a very large scale to be done cheaply and efficiently. Every country will not need it's own nuclear fuel industry, just as not all countries have their own steel or plastics industry.
It would be enough if all of the interested Great powers had reprocessing and enrichment services, because all countries are either Great powers or within the sphere of influence of a Great power. And if your get a conflict with your current Great power you can always switch to another as the Gerat powers balance each other.
The only countries that would be out of the nuclear fuel loop would be international pariahs like North Korea, and that's a good thing, isn't it?
One could also have some kind of multinational ful centres, but since "multinational" means "aggregate of Great power interests" it wouldn't differ much from what I outlined above.
Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
-
Starvid - Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 3021
- Joined: Sun 20 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Re: Jared Diamond on nuclear power
by formandfile » Sun 19 Mar 2006, 19:19:22
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Leanan', '
')More and more college-ready kids these days find they cannot afford college. They have the grades and the SAT scores, but they can't afford the thousands of dollars in tuition, room, board, books, etc. Some give up. Some try, and end up dropping out for economic reasons, often meaning they have huge debts with no degree to show for it. I'm not sure I would have finished college in today's economic conditions. I don't think my family could have afforded it.
')More and more college-ready kids these days find they cannot afford college. They have the grades and the SAT scores, but they can't afford the thousands of dollars in tuition, room, board, books, etc. Some give up. Some try, and end up dropping out for economic reasons, often meaning they have huge debts with no degree to show for it. I'm not sure I would have finished college in today's economic conditions. I don't think my family could have afforded it.
Tell them to move to Georgia....here as long as you can maintain a 3.0 GPA or higher the state pays 100% of all tuition and fees, plus 300 bucks per year for books (which granted, buys like 3 books, but still...) Combine it with whats left of the federal pell grant and you can live quite comfortably with a dead end service job and have plenty of time left for studying...or posting on peak oil boards
Honestly i think its easier than ever to attend school today....in spite of federal pell grant cuts. Maintaining a 3.0 isnt rocket science, unless you attend Georgia Tech, where all the engineers you're speaking of are currently attending (many of which for free).
-
formandfile - Lignite
- Posts: 205
- Joined: Wed 17 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
- Location: Atlanta - GA - USA
